Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., further declared his independence from President Bush on the State Children’s Health Insurance Program in a Kansas City Star commentary: “I strongly believe President Bush is wrong in his threat to veto this bill. He is claiming the bill does things that it simply does not do: It is not the first step towards the federalization of health care; it does not provide government health care to families making over $80,000; it does not allow adults to be covered under the program; and it will not erode the private health insurance market.”
What it does, Roberts went on, is “ensures necessary steps are taken to encourage private market participation and targets SCHIP back to its original focus: low-income children.”
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- JimJohnson on Let immigrants run
- okobserver on Let immigrants run
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Late-night laughs
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
55 Comments
Even Pat Roberts realizes that this is a no-brainer. Bush has only vetoed very few bills and children’s heatlhcare is one of them?
Why hasn’t Bush vetoed all the spending bills his Republican-controlled Congress sent him in the last 6 years? Where was Bush’s veto pen when the bills were doling out corporate welfare?
Roberts knows that the handwriting is on the wall and even his solid Kansas seat is up for grabs if he continues to be Bush’s lapdog.
Naturally Brownback didn’t vote in favor of the bill because that would have meant he would have shown up for work. Nope, he was too busy campaigning under empty tents rather than concerning himself with the needs of the children he pays lip service too.
I guess the real question is that what is too much income to be making to warrant some public assistance?
From what Tiahrt said this bill would be if you make under 60 thousand dollars a year you would be eligible for this insurance. The part of the sticks I come from sixty thousand is quite a bit, but then other places that might be consider poverty level. I did support the bill mainly at least it is something that is in the right priorities. But not having the break down of the demographics of income earned by region. Off the top of my head there is some wiggle room for a compromise.
But if there were real jobs with livable wages and the healthcare costs were affordable, then no one would need the SCHIP, now would they?
actually to obtain this money as “a child” you have to be under the age of 25 and make less than $80,000 a year so why should someone bother to get health insurance to cover their own family (or themselves if they are under 25) when they can get this at OUR expense? take time to read the whole program to get the real story about it.
Do you really think that tobacco tax will actually cover the costs of this program? what happens when people stop buying tobacco products because of the huge increase in taxes on them? a couple bucks more per pack and ten bucks more per cigar?
this program is also designed to automatically accept illegal aliens too. something else to draw more of them into our country.
personally i don’t want to support the health insurance of other people. this is just another ‘entitlement’ that people will think they deserve at the expense of others. remember, SCHIPS is only ONE of 70 different medical care programs the federal government dispenses.
i don’t want to go to a national health program. i have friends and family in Canada and England who tell me the horror stories of their programs and the terribly long waits for surgery or of other people who are refused medical care/treatment/surgery because of personal habits that have resulted in undo pain and even death. take time to read some stories of these issues in their online newspapers and form your own opinion.
Another horror story of nationala health care programs. What a crock!
As far as the child under 25 qualifying for health insurance, what is the difference between that scenario and the thousands of single parents with kids who automatically qualify for free health care because of their single status? Let’s not forget that most of these so-called single parents are shacking up with the father of at least one of their babies; but yet the taxpayers are still paying for free healthcare for the kids and the single parent (usually the woman because she makes less money).
Why just complain about the SCHIP when the current welfare system is just as rotten?
Personally, I’m tired of seeing my taxpayer money going to help these corporations to outsource their jobs. Why give them tax breaks? Why give corporations tax breaks to hire people that cannot or will not do the job, are non-English speaking and could care less.
Again, why just pick on the children’s healthcare program?
Senator Roberts has done a great job of representing Kansas in the US Senate.
He has the courage to stand up and oppose the White House view when needed.
We particularly notice his strong support for the working people of Kansas by voting against any AMNESTY for ILLEGAL Aliens.
We have found him very accessable and responsive when contacted.
Senator Roberts in the ONE Senator from Kansas we can count on to be there, be involved and VOTE.
Marionmaid.
Senator Roberts was one of the Steadfast opposition to the Imigration Fiasco last summer.
He is one of 22 senators who last week stepped forward and let it be known publically that he would vote NO as the DREAM act (a chain migration nightmare) was being promised to the pro-amnesty supports as an ammendment to the DOD spending bill.
Senator Roberts understands your concern about welfare and how it is in danger of eating all taxpaying americans alive.
Get involved, what the issues and give credit where credit is due. Senator Roberts supports us, we need him there!!
The reason that Roberts broke with Bush is simple- the SCHIP program is not a “poor kids” program. They keep saying that it is for “poor” kids but poor kids are mostly on medicaid and not SCHIP programs. If it was really for poor kids, Roberts could safely oppose it. The REAL scoop on SCHIP is the fact that it is most popular with working and lower middle class people- you know the folks that work at Wal*Mart or run small businesses of their own and live in the exurbs and rural areas of the country. These people tend to lean Republican when they vote and since the Republicans have pissed off about everybody else (women, blacks, gays, Mexicans) at them, Roberts knows that they can ill afford to piss off rural white folks too. And he knows if SCHIP doesn’t pass, it is not going to hurt the poor black kids in Wichita but the working class white kids in places like Galena and Goodland.
To bad roberts didn’t have any balls to stand up to bush when he let bush tell all the lies leading up to the war in iraq.
Mike,
Indeed. If Roberts truly is “his own man,” why did he footdrag for YEARS in release the Senate Intelligence Committee’s final reports on Iraq intelligence? Why was he so willing, so often, to stonewall, delay, dissemble, and slow-walk the Committee’s report? Turns out Cheney was leaning on him.
“According to Senator Jay Rockfeller (D-WV), Vice President Dick Cheney applies “constant” pressure on Senator Pat Roberts (R-Kan) to stall the inquiry that is looking into the Bush administration’s use of flawed intelligence on Iraq. The investigation, known as the Phase II investigation, was supposed to have been completed shortly after the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence finished the first phase in July 2004. Cheney’s office denies that the vice president tried to influence the pace of the investigation in anyway.”
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=CheneyPressuresRobertsPhaseII#CheneyPressuresRobertsPhaseII
Senator Roberts fears he’s lying on his political deathbed, and now appears to be finding God (i.e. putting some daylight between himself and Bush) by supporting SCHIP. Well, at least he’s doing the right thing in this case.
P.S. Don’t you staffers for Senator Roberts have anything better to do with your time than to flog us here on the Weblog to support him?
Roberts doesn’t give a damn about kids. He’s trying to save his arse. He’s a true blue prune-faced war mongering republican
He has the courage to stand up and oppose the White House view when needed.Posted by: Appreciate Senator Roberts | October 02, 2007 at 05:00 AM
That must be why he’s known as “Rubber-Stamp” Roberts.
The only time our Repub. Senators have shown any backbone to do the right thing, is when the public outcry was deafening. That’s not leadership!
So… you mean bush’s senator wants to flip flop and become kansas’ senator again?
Heheheheh. Nice safe issue for him to stomp his widdle feets and say he can TOO stand up to our war daddy.
Too little too late. Buh bye.
“actually to obtain this money as “a child” you have to be under the age of 25 and make less than $80,000 a year’
I think that is the Bush claim that FactCheck debunked.
Ben, it doesn’t matter if it’s been debunked. If Bush said it, it’s true for Republicans.
That Website from New Jersey I posted yesterday stated if one have seven children, one can make up to 92,000/year and qualify for the New Jersey SCHIPS program. It was two years ago when that was posted, I suppose it is still current.
With seven children you can use all the help you can get!
heh, no doubt The Phantom. :)
If you have seven children, and it is not from a mixed marriage, you need sex education, not government health insurance
Again, if a person has 7 children, there is very little chance that person ever pays income tax again until after the kids reach legal age.
Again, if the person has 7 kids and is single, that person automatically qualifies for Medicaid and won’t need the SCHIP program – free healthcare for every one of her kids and the single parent.
And, as I recall, wasn’t it you that was advising everyone to go out and find all those free healthcare programs???
Isn’t that what you did?
If you have seven children, and it is not from a mixed marriage, you need sex education, not government health insurance
Posted by: littlejohn | October 02, 2007 at 10:41 AM
Ain’t that the truth!
maidmarion, correct me if I’m in error, but the purpose of the SCHIPS program was to cover children that weren’t eligible for Medicaid, but their family income situation couldn’t afford health insurance for them.
Yes, I encourage those with low middle incomes and several children to seek out assistance.
I find it difficult to believe someone making 7700/month can’t budget for health insurance. That makes my “common sense” alarm sound off very loudly.
Why Roberts wants Bush to sign SCHIPBecause the chickens have come home to roost. He can no longer be the Bush Defense Man, like he could with impunity when he wasn’t up for re-election last time.
One of the lamest arguments I’ve been hearing from SCHIP opponents is that this bill may result in less people smoking. Now how is that a bad thing? As we all know smoking isn’t the best thing for people’s health. Smoking related problems cost taxpayers billions in health related costs, lost productivity and subsidies. Yet somehow less smokers will be considered a bad thing.
I’d place it in the category as another reason to support SCHIP, but unlike Tiahrt I didn’t get $9,000 from tobacco lobbyists last year.
Kansas – but if everyone goes out to find free healthcare programs, then the free healthcare programs will no longer exist due to lack of funding. Is this not correct?
Just another Republican mantra of “I’ve got mine and to hell with you”.
Too little, too late, Pat.
You will remain forever the man who protected Worst. President. Ever.
Don’t try to back away from it now.
Bankrupt the country. It will be so funny!
3 billion a week for Iraq aint doing great things for the treasury either. At least SCHIPS helps people.
Why should we pay for insurance on a family that makes $62,000 plus a year? That is for most states. New York will receive insurance for families making $80,000 plus a year because the bill said their cost of living was higher. That is what the bill calls for. It will also expand to adults up to age 25.
Not only will our tax dollars pay for it but also there will be another tax on cigarettes (I don’t really care because I don’t smoke) and it will take thousands of new smokers for the money to be generated from that tax to pay for the expansion of this program. So are we going to promote more smoking?
What happens if the tax does not generate the amount of money needed to fund this program? It will come from other needed programs like those for the elderly. Why would we want to do that?
Perino: Bush Will Veto SCHIP ‘Quietly’ Without ‘Ceremony’ »
Both the Senate and the House have passed an expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) with strong bipartisan majorities. In today’s White House press briefing, a reporter said that Democratic leaders would likely be sending the legislation to the President to sign (or, in this case, veto) this afternoon.White House spokeswoman Dana Perino confirmed that President Bush plans to veto the legislation “tomorrow or so.” When asked whether there will be a ceremony, Perino replied, “I would not anticipate that there would be any ceremony.” She added, “The President will probably veto it quietly.”
It’s not surprising that Bush is hoping no one notices his veto, which will deny health coverage to four million children. Over 70 percent of Americans support Congress’s proposed SCHIP increase. Bush has stated that he opposes funding the program with revenue from cigarette taxes, even though such taxes are tied to decreases in smoking. Furthermore, the public overwhelmingly supports raising tobacco taxes, by a margin of 67 percent to 28 percent.Bush knows his veto is unpopular. After all, he’s certainly not opposed to lavish ceremonies and using children for political photo-ops:
Perhaps Bush couldn’t find any families who would be willing to stand with him on this veto?
“Bush has stated that he opposes funding the program with revenue from cigarette taxes, even though such taxes are tied to decreases in smoking.”
Wouldn’t that also lower the income?I’ll bet you could get 80% in favor of free car insurance.
I’ll bet you could get 80% in favor of free car insurance.Posted by: fleettwood | October 02, 2007 at 04:53 PM
That makes no sense. What do taxes on cigarettes and free insurance have to do with one another.
I find it difficult to believe someone making 7700/month can’t budget for health insurance. That makes my “common sense” alarm sound off very loudly.Posted by: Kansas | October 02, 2007 at 10:48 AM
Show me your proof that a family making $92,400 a year is going to be eligible for this program Kansas.
If the whiners are afraid that tobacco won’t raise enough money then we can always legalize pot and tax the hell out of that.
Thats it. Enable more people to have even more reason to have even more babies without their daddy’s taking care of them because they will expect those of us who work hard to take care of our own families, to continue to take care of them while they stay at home spending money on plasma/lcd televisions, game stations, 150 dollar tennis shoes and more. All of these programs have created more “needy victims” since they began than before these socialist programs were begun. Why work? Why get educated? Why take care of your family? Why take care of yourself when there are others who are expected to do it for you?
Well, then why should children have access to free education, clean drinking water, safe roads, police and fire departments, etc? We’re talking fundamental stuff here, and health care is as fundamental as it gets. I can’t think of a better way to spend our tax money than providing every citizen of the US access to affordable health care..what the hell is the problem with that? To say that it will only encourage people to have more kids and live a welfare lifestyle is absurd. If I had my way, we’d stop this expensive and stupid war and use the money to fund health care for everyone.As it is, SCHIP will cost less than what a couple of weeks in Iraq is costing us now.
“”"If you have seven children, and it is not from a mixed marriage, you need sex education, not government health insurance”"”
Is that a racial comment? Mixed marriages do not produce anymore kids than white-white and black-black marriages do.
“”"If the whiners are afraid that tobacco won’t raise enough money then we can always legalize pot and tax the hell out of that.”"”
Sounds like a plan to me.
Bush’s False Claims About Children’s Health Insurance
September 21, 2007
The president mischaracterizes congressional efforts to expand the SCHIP program.
Summary
President Bush gave a false description of proposed legislation to expand the 10-year-old federal program to provide health insurance for children in low-income working families.
He said it “would result” in covering children in families with incomes up to $83,000 per year, which isn’t true. The Urban Institute estimated that 70 percent of children who would gain coverage are in families earning half that amount, and the bill contains no requirement for setting income eligibility caps any higher than what’s in the current law. (The compromise bill that was released a few days after Bush’s press conference does rescind an administration effort to block New York state from increasing its eligibility cap to that level.)
He also said the program was “meant to help poor children,” when in fact Congress stated that it was meant to expand insurance coverage beyond the poor and to cover millions of “low-income” children who were well above the poverty line. Under current law most states cover children at twice or even three times the official poverty level.
The president also says Congress’ expansion is a step toward government-run health care for all. It’s true that some children and families with private insurance are expected to shift to the government program. But the Congressional Budget Office estimates that such a shift is relatively low considering the number of uninsured these bills would reach.——————————The above is only an excerpt. The whole summary is very long, so if you wish, continue reading here.
http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_false_claims_about_childrens_health_insurance.html
“If you have seven children, and it is not from a mixed marriage, you need sex education, not government health insurance”
Kev, I think littlejohn was referring to people who are in second or third marriages and are bringing their kids into it with them..not racially mixed couples.I have a friend who has 7 kids, all teenagers and adolecents…4 from his first marriage and 3 from hers. They have no kids together…life is difficult enough as it is!
Scary how misinformed Bush is about this issue…not surprising though, given his distain for facts. He certainly has his own reality, doesn’t he? Has nothing to do with the real world outside his ivory tower.
The uninformed fool occupying our White House vetoed the bill very quietly this morning. Unlike most times when he brings in an audience of his choosing, this was behind closed doors. How nice would it be if those few needed in the House would hear from enough constituents, do some thinking, wake up to reality, whatever it takes and then override this stupid veto?
Well, Bush did it; he vetoed SCHIP! 73% of the people wanted this bill and Bush vetoed it. About an equal percentage don’t want Bush’s War. EVERYBODY write, phone, e-mail your congressman NOW, and insist that they withhold all funds for his petty personal war for profit until the children of America get the health care they deserve! If we can’t do this, we have no business calling ourselves Free Americans! Get Busy! You have nothing to save but your integrity!
Go to Todd Tiahrt’s website to contact him. The fourth selection down on the list to the far left is “Send Todd a message.” The link is below, please send him an email letting him know how you feel about SCHIP. Just under the navigational selections are addresses and phone numbers. Please contact him or whoever is your representative.
http://www.house.gov/tiahrt/welcome.shtm
I’ve sent an email and called his Wichita office. Let’s at least let him know how we feel!
The 27% against must have been the ones who would’ve paid for it.
Maybe the GOP should adopt “suffer the little children” as their campaign theme next election.
I’ve heard it said by many “in the know” that when you leave the House of Representatives and go into the Senate the IQ level raises several percentage points.
In this vote, where the Senate passed SCHIP with a veto-proof majority and the House didn’t, it was certainly proven the Senate has higher intelligence levels!
linda – I think part of what it also shows is that incumbency is a bit less of an advantage in the Senate. You can’t gerrymander states. So, more GOP snators are sweating re-election than GOP House members.
I believe Ben has a very valid point there, Linda. The same thought had crossed my mind during the voting, namely the political risk of opposition was greater for the GOP senators facing reelection in 2008 vis a vis the House members (all of whom, of course, are facing reelection in 2008) in “safe” districts.
linda – I think part of what it also shows is that incumbency is a bit less of an advantage in the Senate. You can’t gerrymander states. So, more GOP snators are sweating re-election than GOP House members.
Posted by: Ben | October 03, 2007 at 10:41 AM
Give that man a cupie doll! :)
VT – I would also note that most Dems are in similarly safe seats. Often their biggest threat might be a primary opponent who is more ‘pure.’ This pattern, IMO, increases the polarization in the House as compared to the senate.
There was a great editorial in today’s Eagle title, “Stop polarizing politics.” If you haven’t read it I encourage everyone to do so. Written by Cal Thomas and Bob Beckel, two men on opposing “sides,” it describes the dynamics of today’s politics (and this discussion board) well.
It states, “We no longer debate ideas and settle for the best of them, whether we agree completely. We now seek to demonize the “other side” as having ideas born in the mind of Satan. One’s opponent, or the opposing side, is smeared as evil and corrupt with no redeeming qualities. Once one has been so labeled, it is difficult to search for, much less reach, common ground.”
The quote of the IQ level going way up in the Senate came from a person I know very well who was invited to testify before Congress. He said even their staff displayed this raise in IQ. So, although I trust each of you who points out the safety of incumbency or lack thereof, I do think there is also some validity to the IQ idea.
True, Ben; being an incumbent is a great advantage, regardless of party affiliation, in Congress, particularly in the House when combined with the redistricting that occurs everywhere after each census, and sometimes more frequently, such as in Texas.